New guidelines - we aren't allowed to refer to natal sex

Pretty sure Justine's her own woman. She put her neck on the line when she didn't have to.

Worth bearing in mind that Justine’s husband is Ian Katz at c4. Responsible for the car crash that was the Genderquake debate where the GC women on the panel were shouted over while the individuals born male who identify as female were allowed to drone on ad nauseam.

Her position is hardly surprising in that regard.

Actually laughing at Gibb's explanation of a man being a woman whose body does not live up to 'the ideals of some people'!

Good one Gibb - keep them coming wont you?

Gibberty, saying 'I am a woman not trans' would get one of us deleted.

Gibberty, saying 'I am a woman not trans' is actually meaningless now. They have mangled the definitions of women female and sex to such an extent that I don't actually know what they are saying or the point they are trying to make.

Laydees rather than ladies could work well.

Wtf

Transladies.

'Ladies' has been suggested. I like it. Exclusively for the use of.

That should be pinned

Yup Pratchet, it's not about numbers at all, the impact doesn't depend on that...

Just a few points:

To those claiming that you can't be on Mumsnet FWR if you're not gender critical; firstly that evidently isn't true since you're here; secondly, you have shit arguments that are both anti-woman and anti-feminist and that is why they are rejected by the board, which as I said is almost resolutely gender critical/feminist. You're not being rejected, your arguments are. Everyone has the same access to posting on here, people disagreeing with you cannot stop you being here, this is a free forum where the debate around gender is happening and the fact the women here debating it largely reject gender identity and policies like self ID is exactly why TA's hate Mumsnet and want this board closed to feminist women, because this feminism board on the largest online space for women in the UK helps lay bare their lies not just in terms of the claims TA's make, but in terms of the support they say they have for stomping on women and girls that they absolutely (and increasingly) don't.

Also sex and gender reassignment are the two protected characteristics, a GRC does not give someone the protected characteristic of the opposite sex, the very fact of exemptions that apply to men with GRC's based on the fact they are not female and do not have the protections of the female sex as a result, demonstrates this. I honestly don't get why anyone bothers with people who lie about stuff like this. In order to debate we need to agree on a few basic aspects of reality, i.e. like the fact that sex is real and protected, otherwise there's just no point (imo).

Lastly I want to say that I used to use the term 'transwoman' for men who say they are women on here (mostly but not always, it depended on the context) but I will not be complicit in coerced speech, and the banning of referring to men who say they are women in any way that includes the word 'male' has made it such that now using the term transwoman feels like submitting to coercion. So I won't do it. If @MNHQ want me not to use the expression 'men who say they are women' then please let me know what alternative term you would be happy with that doesn't coerce me to only ever be able to refer to men the way they tell me to.

Yes, someone once scoffed when I said a single man destroys a female space. But it's true! It no longer exists, it has ceased to be. I get really annoyed when TRA say 'but there's just a few of us!' Doesn't matter.

A question for gibbertyflibbert and others, in the light of the notion of 'natal sex' regarding transition:

(gibbertyflibbert has posted many times asserting the definite possibility of a person changing their sex.)

Suppose, hypothetically, a person has changed sex. What sex could that person have been before the change; given which, what sex could that person be after the change?

And a supplementary: what might be the proximate cause (as opposed to the background aetiology) of that change?

AskATerf that is a brilliant article, needs to be widely shared!

Gibberty will just harass and repeat the weird made up ideology here all day.

As we know men move into women's spaces thinking they will be part of this space What they absolutely fail to realise is that their presence means it is no longer a woman's space. It will never be otherwise.

You should start, if you want a conversation, to explain what you mean by certain words. 'Trans' for example. What do you mean by that?

Gibberty, saying 'I am a woman not trans' would get one of us deleted. I've said before, using words like woman and man when you don't know what they mean is profoundly pointless. (Most TRA female supporters say 'I am a cis woman' tbh. you phrasing would be thought to be transphobic.

It's classic feminism.

You are funny.

"This is happening to us only and because we are of the female sex. Men are not expected to give ground to the transcommunity in the same way"

Again, I am a woman not trans as are many people who reject the gender critical approach to trans people. And it isn't about giving ground to the trans community, it is ensuring that all women get full rights even if their bodies don't live up the ideals of some people. It's classic feminism.

And what is that discrimination based on?

It couldn’t possibly be child bearing and rearing, could it? As opposed to airy fairy notions of lady feels?

-Sex is listed as a protected characteristic because of the discrimination that people, mostly women, suffer due to their biological sex.*

So women don't suffer pay discrimination at work for example? There is no problem that some people stil think a woman's place is in the home?

Discrimination isn't only linked to biology.

When posters with non GC views try to join the discussions in FWR they are almost always treated with hostility and suspicion. This has resulted in a segment of mn where the impression is of over-riding resolutely GC views, but that segment is not representative of mn users as a whole.

This! Anyone who has popped in here over a period see's the same 20-30 or so GC voices pushing misinformation or mis-representing studies/laws etc and less than a couple of hundred posters propping the boards up, it is the same names, saying the same things over and over again, and to position it as representative of millions of people is quite ridiculous.

Layat: "Then we have Mumsnet, the largest online space for women in the UK, 12 million unique visitors monthly, nearly resolutely gender critical and against self ID"

I don't think this statement bears scrutiny at all.

Most mn posters never set foot in FWR and would not know what GC or self ID even mean.

More than once there have been posts in here encouraging regular GC posters to go and get involved in AIBU or chat to "raise awareness" or keep a trans thread going to see if you can "peak trans" more of the general mn user base.

When posters with non GC views try to join the discussions in FWR they are almost always treated with hostility and suspicion. This has resulted in a segment of mn where the impression is of over-riding resolutely GC views, but that segment is not representative of mn users as a whole.

Repeated dismissals of reality plus distortion of the truth is gaslighting and a form of very harmful verbal abuse - akin to that found in abuse of intimate partners. It is noticeable that certain OPs derail multiple times on multiple threads. Why is trolling behaviour like this tolerated and enabled? That's bystander bullying.

Best to ignore in the meantime - they love any attention even negative and obviously have nothing better to do